One divine person in Jesus

[Tigran1245]

You are confusing the different natures in the human nature with the human nature itself. Man has different natures: the soul has its nature, and the body has its nature. But both the soul and the body are human by nature.

The nature of the soul and the nature of the body are parts of human nature, but not human nature.

But we are not talking about this. We are talking about the human nature itself and the Divine Nature itself. Well, according to the teaching of the Bible and according to the Miaphysite formula, Christ has ONE united Nature: the fully Divine and Human Nature, the Nature of the Word Incarnate. So Christ's soul has ONE Nature, fully Divine and fully Human. The body of Christ has ONE Nature, fully Divine and fully Human.

No. If parts of Christ have divine nature, then you are a polytheist. The parts of Christ are divine not by their nature, but divine by their unity with the Logos.

I am very sad that you don't notice that what you just said here is a heresy. There is nothing called flesh independently from the Word. It is the flesh of the Word Himself. The Word  became flesh; He didn't just take an independent flesh from the Blessed Theotokos and add it to His Person. He was  incarnated.

No, to say that the Logos as hypostasis itself has a human nature is heresy. Our Fathers condemn Chalcedonians for this. If you confess that the Logos assumed a human nature without human hypostasis, then there will be either a change in the Deity, or docetism and the illusion of the incarnation. Human nature is only an abstraction without a human hypostasis.

Here is what Khosrovik the Interpreter, one of the most authoritative dogmatists of our Church, writes against Chalcedonians:

“Hypostasis of the Word is invisible, because it is incorporeal, and we have both seen and touched what is visible. Now, if you say that the Word appeared in itself, … , then either [it] lost its incorporeality and turned into a body, or, according to you, the Word appeared as it seemed and in human form. Look with what thoughts you have tried to confuse the pure hearing of the people of Christ!”

«However, because of this we do not divide Christ into two natures or say of Him two hypostases or two individual properties, but one and the same God the Word incarnate by nature, hypostasis and individual property. Saying firmly one nature, hypostasis and individual property in Christ, I do not denounce that which He had from the Father and that which He became or received from humans, i.e. nature, hypostasis and individual property.»

So, it is necessary to confess that not only the nature of Christ is of two natures, but also the hypostasis of Christ is of two hypostases. The translator of Khosrovik the Interpreter and theologian Khachik Grigoryan writes in his book:

“He [Khosrovik] speaks about the union of hypostases, natures and personal properties.”

The Divine Nature doesn't suffer and die by Nature, but the Word suffers and dies by Nature, because He is 100% Human as well as 100% God by Nature.

Word as hypostasis is not human by nature, it is Deity. Word incarnate - human by nature. And Word in the sense of person - human by nature. But Word as hypostasis is not human by nature, it is human by unity with flesh, not nature.

To say that the Divine hypostasis of the Word is human in nature would be either a change of the Deity into humanity, or an illusory incarnation. This is the quote from Khosrovik above.

But both the body and the soul of man have only ONE nature, the human nature. There is very little similarity between the soul and body of man and the two Essences of Christ.

No, the union of soul and body into one nature is similar to the union of Divinity and humanity into one nature. Jesus is God and man the same way as we are flesh and soul.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

«For we, uniting them, confess one Christ, one and the same Son, one Lord, and therefore call only one nature of God incarnate. Something similar can be said about every man. For he too consists of different natures, that is, of body and soul. Although reason and contemplation provide an understanding of their difference, however, uniting them, we make one nature of man. Why, to admit a difference in natures, does not mean dividing one Christ into two.»

“Thus He is thought of as one and only, and everything that is said relates to Him as proceeding from one Person. For after the union, one nature of the Word is thought to be incarnate. It will be just as reasonable to understand it in relation to ourselves, for man is truly One, composed of dissimilar things, I mean soul and body.”

This is a very simple way of expression in the semitic languages: they say "soul", but they mean "individual". This has nothing to do with our topic.

Yes, but the same way we confess nature of Jesus. This example is from christological letter from Prince Ashot I and the scholar Sahak to Photius of Constantinople:

“Holy Scripture uses the word "man", sometimes it means only the soul, saying: "In the image of God created he man", sometimes only the body, because these two natures have unity. On the other hand, sometimes naming the soul, it points to the body, sometimes naming the body, it points to the soul. For example, when he says: "Do not worry about your souls, what you will eat and what you will wear", naming the souls, he pointed to the body, or again when he said: "Do you not know that your body is the temple of God", naming the body, he points to the soul, for God dwells in the soul. It is also said: "Seventy-five souls went into Egypt", the word "soul" points to the whole man. It is also said: "Every body will come to you", the word "body" points to the whole man. In the same way, Holy Scripture speaks of the united natures of Jesus Christ. For example, when the Apostle writes: "All things in heaven and on earth have become Christ", pointing only to His Divinity. He also writes, saying: “There is one intercessor between God and men, the man Jesus Christ,” indicating His humanity.”

In a similar way we confess divinity and humanity of Christ, according to the Fathers.

But we don't speak of two natures anymore. Mía Physis!

We confess “out of two natures“ after the union. And we can speak about two natures in the sense of “out of two natures”.

St. Cyril:

“For you must take two living and clean birds, so that through these birds you may understand together the heavenly man and God, truly in two natures, divided in thought [λόγον] according to each.“

St. Hovanes of Odzun:

«The holy Fathers, therefore, without fear of obloquy, maintained in Christ two natures, a divine and a human. They said "two natures," for that he was both God and Man, the natures coexisting in him. And in very truth Christ hath both natures, for Christ is two, a visible man, and an invisible God. Others besides have said similar things. Not that in saying he was of two natures they denied that he was of one, or that on the other hand in confessing the one nature they stubbornly refused to confess him of two natures. But courageously they bore aloft both those lamps of orthodoxy, proclaiming Christ according to the natures two and according to the union one..."

 

[Tigran1245]

Your quotation does NOT say He has two wills. It says that Christ has a fully human will. And this is exactly what the one will of Christ is: both fully Human and fully Divine.

And it is vain philosophy to say His decision is one, but the ability to take decision is two. He is One Person and He has One Nature, so He has One Will, the Will of the Word Incarnate, and He has one decision, the decision of the Word Incarnate according to His One Physis.

The Armenian Church professes one will out of two. Catholicos Karegin I said this directly during the theological dialogue:

And Khosrovik the Interpreteur condemns monophelite heresy too. We believe in two wills by natures and one will by unity:

«So also with regard to the assertion of two wills and two actions in Christ: if someone says that this is by nature, then this will not be outside the truth, lest he become hardened, as Gaius and Theodosius, calling the body of the Lord taken from the Virgin insensible, inactive and passionless. But if by union and the same united dares to ascribe two wills and two actions, then he will be very far from the truth, and repeating the errors of Maximus.»

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

The nature of the soul and the nature of the body are parts of human nature, but not human nature.

Man's soul and man's body are human soul and human body by nature. They do not become human by union. They do not originally  exist before the "union". We do not believe in the existence of the soul before conception. Mormons do...

No. If parts of Christ have divine nature, then you are a polytheist. The parts of Christ are divine not by their nature, but divine by their unity with the Logos.

Basics: a polytheist is someone who believes in many gods. I believe in ONE God, and this ONE God was incarnated in the Person of the Son. Jesus Christ is  fully Human, not Human in some parts, and fully Divine, and not Divine in some parts.

No, to say that the Logos as hypostasis itself has a human nature is heresy. Our Fathers condemn Chalcedonians for this. If you confess that the Logos assumed a human nature without human hypostasis, then there will be either a change in the Deity, or docetism and the illusion of the incarnation. Human nature is only an abstraction without a human hypostasis.

If you confess two Hypostases for the Son, then you are a Nestorian in disguise. We believe in the HYPOSTATIC UNION. The SAME Hypostasis, the second Person of the Trinity, became flesh. Read the book of Pope Shenouda III "The Nature of Christ". You are contradicting him and of course you are contradicting the Word of God.

Here is what Khosrovik the Interpreter, one of the most authoritative dogmatists of our Church, writes against Chalcedonians:

“Hypostasis of the Word is invisible, because it is incorporeal, and we have both seen and touched what is visible. Now, if you say that the Word appeared in itself, … , then either [it] lost its incorporeality and turned into a body, or, according to you, the Word appeared as it seemed and in human form. Look with what thoughts you have tried to confuse the pure hearing of the people of Christ!”

«However, because of this we do not divide Christ into two natures or say of Him two hypostases or two individual properties, but one and the same God the Word incarnate by nature, hypostasis and individual property. Saying firmly one nature, hypostasis and individual property in Christ, I do not denounce that which He had from the Father and that which He became or received from humans, i.e. nature, hypostasis and individual property.»

So, it is necessary to confess that not only the nature of Christ is of two natures, but also the hypostasis of Christ is of two hypostases. The translator of Khosrovik the Interpreter and theologian Khachik Grigoryan writes in his book:

“He [Khosrovik] speaks about the union of hypostases, natures and personal properties.”

I remind you that I don't have the means to check your quotations, especially that you are not giving references in the right way, but if Khosrovik or an angel from Heaven said that Jesus Christ has two Hypostases, then he is a heretic and a Nestorian in disguise. We believe in the incarnation of the ONE Hypostasis, the same Son of God, the Word of God. We have seen the Invisible and touched Him, because He  became flesh.  Not that His Divine  Nature became flesh, but He (the Word) united in His Person (Hypostasis) Human Nature to His Divine Nature in one Nature (one Physis). And this Human Nature is not an illusion, because He took it by incarnation from the blessed Virgin. The Virgin did  not bear a human hypostasis to which the second Hypostasis of the Trinity was united (this is the heresy of Nestorianism), but she bore the second Hypostasis of the Trinity.

Word as hypostasis is not human by nature, it is Deity. Word incarnate - human by nature. And Word in the sense of person - human by nature. But Word as hypostasis is not human by nature, it is human by unity with flesh, not nature.

Who is this "flesh"? And which part of Christ is this Hypostasis who is Divine?

To say that the Divine hypostasis of the Word is human in nature would be either a change of the Deity into humanity, or an illusory incarnation. This is the quote from Khosrovik above.

So Khosrovik is a heretic, if this is true.

No, the union of soul and body into one nature is similar to the union of Divinity and humanity into one nature. Jesus is God and man the same way as we are flesh and soul.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

«For we, uniting them, confess one Christ, one and the same Son, one Lord, and therefore call only one nature of God incarnate. Something similar can be said about every man. For he too consists of different natures, that is, of body and soul. Although reason and contemplation provide an understanding of their difference, however, uniting them, we make one nature of man. Why, to admit a difference in natures, does not mean dividing one Christ into two.»

“Thus He is thought of as one and only, and everything that is said relates to Him as proceeding from one Person. For after the union, one nature of the Word is thought to be incarnate. It will be just as reasonable to understand it in relation to ourselves, for man is truly One, composed of dissimilar things, I mean soul and body.”

Yes, the union of the soul and body in one human nature is just  similar to the Divine and Human Essences in Christ, just a similarity, but it doesn't give the full sense. Jesus Christ also is fully Human, and thus He has these two "natures" (body and soul) like us, but He is not two human natures. It is just a similarity to explain the Incarnation.

From "The Nature of Christ" (Pope Shenouda III):

"Though the example of the union of the soul and body in the human nature is inclusive, still it is incomplete as it does not explain how the soul departs the body by death nor how they reunite again in the resurrection.

But as for the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye."

Yes, but the same way we confess nature of Jesus. This example is from christological letter from Prince Ashot I and the scholar Sahak to Photius of Constantinople:

“Holy Scripture uses the word "man", sometimes it means only the soul, saying: "In the image of God created he man", sometimes only the body, because these two natures have unity. On the other hand, sometimes naming the soul, it points to the body, sometimes naming the body, it points to the soul. For example, when he says: "Do not worry about your souls, what you will eat and what you will wear", naming the souls, he pointed to the body, or again when he said: "Do you not know that your body is the temple of God", naming the body, he points to the soul, for God dwells in the soul. It is also said: "Seventy-five souls went into Egypt", the word "soul" points to the whole man. It is also said: "Every body will come to you", the word "body" points to the whole man. In the same way, Holy Scripture speaks of the united natures of Jesus Christ. For example, when the Apostle writes: "All things in heaven and on earth have become Christ", pointing only to His Divinity. He also writes, saying: “There is one intercessor between God and men, the man Jesus Christ,” indicating His humanity.”

In a similar way we confess divinity and humanity of Christ, according to the Fathers.

Yes, we can say "soul" and mean the whole man, and we can say "body" or "flesh" and mean the whole man. I speak a Semitic language. And we can say "the Man Jesus Christ" and mean "the God Incarnate Jesus Christ". But this doesn't divide man or Jesus Christ to different natures. Man is one nature: human. God is one Nature: Divine. Christ is one Nature (Physis): fully Divine and fully Human, and not Divine or Human in some parts.

We confess “out of two natures“ after the union. And we can speak about two natures in the sense of “out of two natures”.

St. Cyril:

“For you must take two living and clean birds, so that through these birds you may understand together the heavenly man and God, truly in two natures, divided in thought [λόγον] according to each.“

Again, I need the reference from Cyril. But we already know that Cyril of Alexandria died before the Chalcedonian controversy, and we read many things in his writings which the Chalcedonians use as proof for their formula. What I read in this quote sounds Chalcedonian. So if you want to be a Chalcedonian, go ahead. Just be a consistent Chalcedonian. But if you want to stay a Miaphysite, then again stay a consistent Miaphysite. CryptoLutheran has warned you about this before me. I assure you that you will read many things in Cyril that sound Chalcedonian, otherwise the Chalcedonians would not accept him as an orthodox Church Father, but Cyril lived before the Chalcedonian controversy.

St. Hovanes of Odzun:

«The holy Fathers, therefore, without fear of obloquy, maintained in Christ two natures, a divine and a human. They said "two natures," for that he was both God and Man, the natures coexisting in him. And in very truth Christ hath both natures, for Christ is two, a visible man, and an invisible God. Others besides have said similar things. Not that in saying he was of two natures they denied that he was of one, or that on the other hand in confessing the one nature they stubbornly refused to confess him of two natures. But courageously they bore aloft both those lamps of orthodoxy, proclaiming Christ according to the natures two and according to the union one..."

Tell Hovanes of Odzun or whoever you want: Christ has one Physis, one Nature, the Nature of the Word of God Incarnate. Tell him and tell whoever speaks like him, that we are reforming the Church and the Miaphysite formulation: Christ has ONE Nature (Physis) from two Essences (Ousia), the Divine and Human Essences.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

The Armenian Church professes one will out of two. Catholicos Karegin I said this directly during the theological dialogue:
View attachment 362610


And Khosrovik the Interpreteur condemns monophelite heresy too. We believe in two wills by natures and one will by unity:

«So also with regard to the assertion of two wills and two actions in Christ: if someone says that this is by nature, then this will not be outside the truth, lest he become hardened, as Gaius and Theodosius, calling the body of the Lord taken from the Virgin insensible, inactive and passionless. But if by union and the same united dares to ascribe two wills and two actions, then he will be very far from the truth, and repeating the errors of Maximus.»

I have showed you what Pope Shenouda III said about the one Will of Christ. If the Armenian Church is contradicting Miaphysitism, then it's your problem. Again, I will not discuss your quotations, because they have no clear context and I don't have the means to check them even if you give me the references. But if what you say is true, then you are a Chalcedonian and a Nestorian in disguise.

The will is an ability or a decision of a person according to his nature. An impersonal being cannot will. This is one of the arguments for the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not just a force. So we will according to our nature. Christ has one Nature, the God-Man Nature (Physis) that has two Essences united in one. So He wills according to this ONE Nature. He has one Will. I don't know what is Monophelitism (which you mentioned), but Monothelitism is a Chalcedonian problem, not a Miaphysite problem. Eutychianism leads to the heretical idea that Christ has one single Will, the Divine Will, i.e. the Will according to His one Nature which is only Divine according to Eutychianism. But this is not what we say. Christ has one Will, the Will of the Son of God Incarnate, which is fully the same Will of God in a Man. The Will of Christ is according to His one Physis. He is God Incarnate, really.

 

[Tigran1245]

Jesus Christ is  fully Human, not Human in some parts, and fully Divine, and not Divine in some parts.

He is full God and full man, but not that the Deity is humanity or humanity is the Deity. You are confusing the Deity and humanity of Christ.

If you confess two Hypostases for the Son, then you are a Nestorian in disguise. We believe in the HYPOSTATIC UNION. The SAME Hypostasis, the second Person of the Trinity, became flesh. Read the book of Pope Shenouda III "The Nature of Christ". You are contradicting him and of course you are contradicting the Word of God.

Saint Cyril confessed the hypostasis of Christ out of two hypostases.

"It is certainly known that the Word has one nature, but incarnate and became human, as we have said. But if anyone wants to examine more precisely how He became incarnate and human, he must consider that the Word, who is from God, took the form of a servant, becoming in human likeness, as Scripture says. And by this alone can one understand the difference of natures or hypostases."

(PG 77, 193B) Epistle to Acacius.

If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Anathema of the Twelve Chapters)

Since he points out that God's form took upon himself the form of a servant, let him go on and explain whether it was just these "forms" that came together by themselves, quite apart from their hypostases. Well, I reckon that even he would shrink from saying that, for it was not mere resemblances and forms, things with no hypostasis, that conjoined together to bring about the saving union; rather, it was a convergence of the very things themselves, of two hypostases. Then we can really have faith that a genuine incarnation took place.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defense of the Twelve Chapters against Theodoret of Cyrus, Defense 1)

Check it here:

I remind you that I don't have the means to check your quotations, especially that you are not giving references in the right way,

Book of Khosrovik Targmanich: Dogmatic Writings | Ankyunacar Publishing

I have Russian version of this book. So, I translated from Russian.

but if Khosrovik or an angel from Heaven said that Jesus Christ has two Hypostases, then he is a heretic and a Nestorian in disguise.

So, according to you, St. Cyril is Nestorian too, becuse he taught about one hypostasis from two.

We believe in the incarnation of the ONE Hypostasis, the same Son of God, the Word of God. We have seen the Invisible and touched Him, because He  became flesh.  Not that His Divine  Nature became flesh, but He (the Word) united in His Person (Hypostasis) Human Nature to His Divine Nature in one Nature (one Physis).

Hypostasis is not Person. Hypostasis is thing. Person is self-awareness. Jesus is not out of two Persons, but out of two natures and hypostases.

And this Human Nature is not an illusion, because He took it by incarnation from the blessed Virgin. The Virgin did  not bear a human hypostasis to which the second Hypostasis of the Trinity was united (this is the heresy of Nestorianism), but she bore the second Hypostasis of the Trinity.

So, the Divine hypostasis has changed and the Deity has changed into a body. You are chalcedonian.

So Khosrovik is a heretic, if this is true.

Khosrovik is Holy Father of Manazkert Council 726.

From "The Nature of Christ" (Pope Shenouda III):

"Though the example of the union of the soul and body in the human nature is inclusive, still it is incomplete as it does not explain how the soul departs the body by death nor how they reunite again in the resurrection.

But as for the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye."

Pope Shenouda does not confirm what you say. He only notes that the soul and body will be separated when humanity and divinity will never be separated. But what does this have to do with the image of union?

Again, I need the reference from Cyril. But we already know that Cyril of Alexandria died before the Chalcedonian controversy, and we read many things in his writings which the Chalcedonians use as proof for their formula. What I read in this quote sounds Chalcedonian.

PG 69, p. 576

So if you want to be a Chalcedonian, go ahead. Just be a consistent Chalcedonian. But if you want to stay a Miaphysite, then again stay a consistent Miaphysite.

I am a Miaphysite, so I speak both about one nature and about Christ being out of two natures. Only Monophysites deny that Christ is out of two natures after the union. St. Dioscorous of Alexandria accepted formula “from two natures after the union”. From book “The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined” by Father V.C. Samuel:

Tell Hovanes of Odzun or whoever you want:

St. Hovanes of Odzun is in TOP 3 Holy Fathers of the Armenian Church. By rejecting him, you reject all Oriental Orthodoxy.

Tell him and tell whoever speaks like him, that we are reforming the Church and the Miaphysite formulation: Christ has ONE Nature (Physis) from two Essences (Ousia), the Divine and Human Essences.

Reforming the Church? Seriosly?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

He is full God and full man, but not that the Deity is humanity or humanity is the Deity. You are confusing the Deity and humanity of Christ.

Yes, the Deity is NOT Humanity, and the Humanity is NOT Deity. But Christ is FULLY God and FULLY Man, and not God only in parts nor Man only in parts.

Saint Cyril confessed the hypostasis of Christ out of two hypostases.

"It is certainly known that the Word has one nature, but incarnate and became human, as we have said. But if anyone wants to examine more precisely how He became incarnate and human, he must consider that the Word, who is from God, took the form of a servant, becoming in human likeness, as Scripture says. And by this alone can one understand the difference of natures or hypostases."

(PG 77, 193B) Epistle to Acacius.

As much as I know, this is a quote from Severus of Antioch, and not from Cyril of Alexandria. Of course, you can correct me by giving me a direct link to the book.

But Severus does NOT say here that two Hypostases existed before the union. He uses the term "Hypostasis" in its broad sense, as it was used in early Christological debates, in a descriptive way, to express the reality of the human nature in Christ and not a distinct Hypostasis.

If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Anathema of the Twelve Chapters)

In this anathema, Cyril is anathematizing the Nestorian teaching that divides the hypostases after the union of the natures in the one Hypostasis of the Son. He is NOT approving it.

Since he points out that God's form took upon himself the form of a servant, let him go on and explain whether it was just these "forms" that came together by themselves, quite apart from their hypostases. Well, I reckon that even he would shrink from saying that, for it was not mere resemblances and forms, things with no hypostasis, that conjoined together to bring about the saving union; rather, it was a convergence of the very things themselves, of two hypostases. Then we can really have faith that a genuine incarnation took place.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defense of the Twelve Chapters against Theodoret of Cyrus, Defense 1)

This quotation is from Theodoret of Cyrus, a Nestorian who OPPOSED Cyril and against whom Cyril wrote this Defense from which you are quoting. You made it seem like it was Cyril who was saying this...

Check it here:

Really? You want me to watch all this long video where this Nestorian is trying to prove his Christology??

Book of Khosrovik Targmanich: Dogmatic Writings | Ankyunacar Publishing

I have Russian version of this book. So, I translated from Russian.

I should buy this book to read the quotation in context?

So, according to you, St. Cyril is Nestorian too, becuse he taught about one hypostasis from two.

Where did he teach that? Show me.

Hypostasis is not Person. Hypostasis is thing. Person is self-awareness. Jesus is not out of two Persons, but out of two natures and hypostases.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Is God Three Hypostases, or just three things?...

So, the Divine hypostasis has changed and the Deity has changed into a body. You are chalcedonian.

1. Chalcedonians do not believe that the Divine Hypostasis or the Deity changed to a body.

2. We do not believe that the Divine Hypostasis or the Deity changed to a body.

Chalcedonians agree with us that the ONE Son united IN HIS ONE HYPOSTASIS the Humanity to His Divinity.

Khosrovik is Holy Father of Manazkert Council 726.

Why should I care?

Pope Shenouda does not confirm what you say. He only notes that the soul and body will be separated when humanity and divinity will never be separated. But what does this have to do with the image of union?

Pope Shenouda confirms that the image of the body and soul cannot fully explain the union of the Natures in Christ.

PG 69, p. 576

Link?

I am a Miaphysite, so I speak both about one nature and about Christ being out of two natures. Only Monophysites deny that Christ is out of two natures after the union. St. Dioscorous of Alexandria accepted formula “from two natures after the union”. From book “The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined” by Father V.C. Samuel:

View attachment 362613

Who is opposing the fact that Christ has one Nature by the unity of two Natures (or rather Essences)? Your problem is that you still talk about two Natures after the union. You are using Chalcedonian language.

St. Hovanes of Odzun is in TOP 3 Holy Fathers of the Armenian Church. By rejecting him, you reject all Oriental Orthodoxy.

Hovhannes Imastaser is one of the TOP Armenian theologians who tried to reconcile Miaphysite Christology with Byzantine Chalcedonian Christology.

Why should we, Reformational Apostolics, care? We should reform the errors of our theologians. No man is infallible. We only believe what the Word of God says; the Church has declared the teaching of the Word of God in Her three Ecumenical Councils.

Reforming the Church? Seriosly?

Not seriosly, but seriously. Do you refuse the reformation and insist on continuing in erroneous medieval traditions and developments?

 

[Tigran1245]

Yes, the Deity is NOT Humanity, and the Humanity is NOT Deity. But Christ is FULLY God and FULLY Man, and not God only in parts nor Man only in parts.

Jesus is fully God and fully man, just as man is fully soul and body. I have the fullness of everything that exists in my nature.

As much as I know, this is a quote from Severus of Antioch, and not from Cyril of Alexandria. Of course, you can correct me by giving me a direct link to the book.

This is Cyril of Alexandria. There is a link there. PG77 p.193. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Patrologija/migne/

This quotation is from Theodoret of Cyrus, a Nestorian who OPPOSED Cyril and against whom Cyril wrote this Defense from which you are quoting. You made it seem like it was Cyril who was saying this...

This is said by Saint Cyril, refuting Theodoret of Cyrus. This is a quote from Cyril, not anyone else. Watch the video I sent you, the quote is from there.

Really? You want me to watch all this long video where this Nestorian is trying to prove his Christology??

Watch from 1:21:00

I should buy this book to read the quotation in context?

If you want. Or you can download Russian version (I can give you link) and translate it. There is no English or Armenian version on the web.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Is God Three Hypostases, or just three things?...

Three hypostases and one nature. In the case of the Trinity, nature is one thing. But when we talk about created things, hypostasis is a thing.

Chalcedonians agree with us that the ONE Son united IN HIS ONE HYPOSTASIS the Humanity to His Divinity

Oriental Orthodox Church rejects the teaching of Leontius of Byzantium on enhypostasis.

Link?

This is Patrologia Graeca. All editions can be found here: Патрология Миня: Patrologia Graeca - читать, скачать

Who is opposing the fact that Christ has one Nature by the unity of two Natures (or rather Essences)? Your problem is that you still talk about two Natures after the union. You are using Chalcedonian language.

One essence of Christ does not mean that we cannot distinguish natures and actions by one nature and other. Distinguishing natures is not division.

St. Nerses the Gracious:

“Thus, whereas He was conceived as man, from the Holy Spirit He was conceived as God. He was begotten from woman as man, but from the Virgin He was begotten as God, preserving her virginity intact after the birth. When eight days old, He was circumcised as man, and took away the circumcision of the flesh and taught the circumcision of the heart as the legislator of circumcision. When forty days old, He was offered to the temple as man, and He was testified by Simeon as God.”

We can find the distinction of natures in all Holy Fathers: Hovhannes Odznetsi, Grigor Tatevatsi, Nerses Shnorhali, Nerses Lambronatsi…

Hovhannes Imastaser is one of the TOP Armenian theologians who tried to reconcile Miaphysite Christology with Byzantine Chalcedonian Christology.

Well, in general, Hovhannes anathematized the Chalcedonians, and did not try to unite with them.

Why should we, Reformational Apostolics, care? We should reform the errors of our theologians. No man is infallible. We only believe what the Word of God says; the Church has declared the teaching of the Word of God in Her three Ecumenical Councils.

Not seriosly, but seriously. Do you refuse the reformation and insist on continuing in erroneous medieval traditions and developments?

Are you a Protestant-miaphysite, aren’t you?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Jesus is fully God and fully man, just as man is fully soul and body. I have the fullness of everything that exists in my nature.

The soul is fully human by nature, and the body is fully human by nature. And the hand of Christ is fully Divine-Human by Nature.

This is Cyril of Alexandria. There is a link there. PG77 p.193. Патрология Миня: Patrologia Graeca - читать, скачать

I would prefer a link in Chinese.

This is said by Saint Cyril, refuting Theodoret of Cyrus. This is a quote from Cyril, not anyone else. Watch the video I sent you, the quote is from there.

That video is made by Nestorians who are misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. That quote is from Theodoret of Cyrus, a Nestorian who opposed the Church's Christology.

Watch from 1:21:00

I watched. No context is given.

If you want. Or you can download Russian version (I can give you link) and translate it. There is no English or Armenian version on the web.

So for me this is no reference. Read the book of Pope Shenouda III "The Nature of Christ", and see how you are contradicting the Miaphysite formula.

Three hypostases and one nature. In the case of the Trinity, nature is one thing. But when we talk about created things, hypostasis is a thing.

Hypostasis is formed by the two Greek words "Hypo" (under) and "stasis" (standing): it's an acting individual that represents the nature. It's literally the Armenian word "ենթակայ". In Syriac, it's Qnoma. Christ's Human Nature has ONE HYPOSTASIS: The Hypostasis of the Son. It's the same Divine Hypostasis. This is Hypostatic Union. Both Natures are united in this one Hypostasis of the Son. The Chalcedonians end their formula here. We insist that, if He is one Hypostasis, then He should also be one Nature. He acts as ONE reality. He is ONE Individual, ONE Hypostasis.

Oriental Orthodox Church rejects the teaching of Leontius of Byzantium on enhypostasis.

They reject the formula, but not the doctrine. Though previously they thought they rejected the doctrine.

This is Patrologia Graeca. All editions can be found here: Патрология Миня: Patrologia Graeca - читать, скачать

Do you have a copy in Chinese?...

One essence of Christ does not mean that we cannot distinguish natures and actions by one nature and other. Distinguishing natures is not division.

We SHOULD distinguish the Essences. But we should NOT talk about them as two  Natures. Unless, of course, we want to sound Chalcedonians.

St. Nerses the Gracious:

“Thus, whereas He was conceived as man, from the Holy Spirit He was conceived as God. He was begotten from woman as man, but from the Virgin He was begotten as God, preserving her virginity intact after the birth. When eight days old, He was circumcised as man, and took away the circumcision of the flesh and taught the circumcision of the heart as the legislator of circumcision. When forty days old, He was offered to the temple as man, and He was testified by Simeon as God.”

We can find the distinction of natures in all Holy Fathers: Hovhannes Odznetsi, Grigor Tatevatsi, Nerses Shnorhali, Nerses Lambronatsi…

Thank God that they distinguish the Essences without dividing the one Nature.

Well, in general, Hovhannes anathematized the Chalcedonians, and did not try to unite with them.

He tried to unite. That's history.

Are you a Protestant-miaphysite, aren’t you?

I am a Reformational Armenian Apostolic. I am not Protestant. Actually, there is no Miaphysite Protestant. By definition, Protestants are Chalcedonians, though many non-confessional groups among them may be Nestorians also...

 

[Tigran1245]

That quote is from Theodoret of Cyrus, a Nestorian who opposed the Church's Christology.

Once again, this is a quote from Cyril of Alexandria.

So for me this is no reference. Read the book of Pope Shenouda III "The Nature of Christ", and see how you are contradicting the Miaphysite formula.

I did not just read, I am the translator of this book into Russian. This book is not a deep fundamental theological work, we give it to neophytes for basic knowledge. But it does not reveal the deeper questions that we discuss here.

Do you have a copy in Chinese?...

If you can't translate Greek, how do you even expect to understand Christology? The English/Russian and other translations are largely distorted by the Chalcedonians. It's useless to refer to them. I've been doing this for many years, sometimes entire phrases in the translations are made up.

I am a Reformational Armenian Apostolic. I am not Protestant. Actually, there is no Miaphysite Protestant. By definition, Protestants are Chalcedonians, though many non-confessional groups among them may be Nestorians also...

Who is you Catholicos?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Once again, this is a quote from Cyril of Alexandria.

Quoting Theodoret of Cyrus, a Nestorian, and refuting him.

You are opposing a very well known truth: the Church believes in the Incarnation of the Hypostasis of the Word, not in His union to a human Hypostasis.

I did not just read, I am the translator of this book into Russian. This book is not a deep fundamental theological work, we give it to neophytes for basic knowledge. But it does not reveal the deeper questions that we discuss here.

So why do you contradict it?

If you can't translate Greek, how do you even expect to understand Christology? The English/Russian and other translations are largely distorted by the Chalcedonians. It's useless to refer to them. I've been doing this for many years, sometimes entire phrases in the translations are made up.

Give me the sources in Greek online, and do not worry. Give me direct links to your quotes. A video from a Nestorian apologist who wants to destroy the true doctrine is NOT a good reference. The quotes in the video are out of context.

Who is you Catholicos?

Sadly, we have two Catholicoi in the Armenian Church, because this is a Church that needs serious reformation.

 

[Tigran1245]

You are opposing a very well known truth: the Church believes in the Incarnation of the Hypostasis of the Word, not in His union to a human Hypostasis.

Church believe in hypostatic union = union of hypostases of Word and flesh.

From modern research of St.Cyril Christology of our miaphysite scholar Khachik Grigoryan (Cyril of Alexandria's Hypostatic Union and Natural Union: is there a difference between them):

So why do you contradict it?

It is your fantasy. I don’t contradict it.

Give me the sources in Greek online, and do not worry. Give me direct links to your quotes. A video from a Nestorian apologist who wants to destroy the true doctrine is NOT a good reference. The quotes in the video are out of context.

I don’t have links on Greek online. I gave you online link on all books PG. So, I found one for you. Next time, do it yourself.

St. Cyril about two natures in minds PG 69, p. 576

PG 69, p. 576

Δύο μὲν γὰρ ὀρνίθια ληφθῆναι κελεύει ζῶντα καὶ καθαρά, ἴνα νοήσης διὰ τῶν πετεινῶν τὸν οὐράνιον ἄνθρωπον ὁμοὺ καὶ Θεὸν, εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις, ὅσον ἦκεν εἰς τὸν ἕκαστη πρέποντα λόγον διαιρούμενον. Λόγος γὰρ ἣν ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ἀναλάμψας, ἐν σαρκὶ τὴ ἐκ γυναικός, πλὴν οὐ μεριζόμενος.

For [μὲν] you must take two living and clean birds, so that through these birds you may understand together the heavenly man and God, truly in two natures [εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις], divided in [εἰς] thought [λόγον] according to each. For the Word, who shone forth from God the Father, was of a woman according to the flesh, but was not divided [μεριζόμενος].

And St.Cyril is absolutely orthodox, because we can speak about two natures in mind/theoria/thoughts after union = out of two natures after union = one nature in reality.

Sadly, we have two Catholicoi in the Armenian Church, because this is a Church that needs serious reformation.

So, who is you Catholicos?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Church believe in hypostatic union = union of hypostases of Word and flesh.

Since the beginning of our discussion about this topic, I am noticing that you (and the Armenian medieval theologians which you are quoting) are making the historical error about the Greek term "Hypostasis", but I wanted to make sure through further replies. After your last replies, I was convinced of this, as you think Hypostasis is not a Person, but a "thing", and as you skipped my explanation about the word Hypostasis. I notice that you are avoiding it, because you know the problem in the usage of this term and other terms (like Ousia and Physis and Prosopon and Qnoma) during the Chalcedonian and even the Nestorian controversy which did not end at the Council of Ephesus. I am now convinced that you are falling in the same error in which the Fathers fell concerning the term "Hypostasis" during the Chalcedonian controversy, and you are taking that error further by denying the right usage of this term in the Church's theology, and taking it further to speak of two Hypostases before the union.

During the Chalcedonian controversy, the Greek term "Hypostasis" was used sometimes as meaning "Person", and sometimes as meaning "Nature". This is due to some important facts:

1. Previous to the Cappadocian Fathers, this term was usually used as a synonym for Ousia (Essence). The Cappadocian Fathers clarified and standardized the following usage:
Ousia = Essence (The Trinity has One Essence)
Hypostasis = Person (Three Hypostases in the Trinity).

2. In the Syriac language, Hypostasis was not translated as Prosopa (Person), but as Qnoma which is closer to the Greek Physis, though it doesn't have the exactly same meaning.

During the Chalcedonian controversy, theologians and Church Fathers used Hypostasis in different ways, and they often did not understand each other. But the most important point in our discussion here is that you are quoting the related writings from Cyril of Alexandria making the assumption that he uses the term in the sense used by his opponents. While in fact he refutes their teaching, and sometimes he uses their definition of the term Hypostasis to do the refutation. The same is done by Severus of Antioch who is the best interpreter of Cyril of Alexandria. But you quote them as if THEY are using Hypostasis as meaning whatever you think it means, and saying that Christ is one united Hypostasis out of two Hypostases.

Look at the following quote from Severus of Antioch, where he uses Hypostasis in this polemic way, meaning that Hypostasis is a real reality (not a Person, but a reality, as his opponents say), and thus he uses it in a polemic way to refute their teaching. This does NOT mean that he believes that Hypostasis should mean only reality and not a Person like the Three Persons (Hypostases) of the Trinity:

"Since therefore these things have thus been made clear, it has already been recognised that it is alien to those who confess a hypostatic union to call the hypostases, that is the natures which in an ineffable manner coalesced in one, from which Emmanuel is, persons, and therefore to think and say that the union is from two persons. To say this belongs to those who confess a falsely-named union, who make the man and God exist apart in individual existence, and devise for themselves a conjunction founded upon authority and identity of name." (Severus of Antioch, Letter to Thomas the Syncellus).

You see how he uses Hypostasis in the sense used by his opponent: as meaning Nature. And he refutes your falsely-named union. So yes, in this sense, in the sense used by Severus in the above quote, Hypostatic Union means the Union of the two Hypostases, Divine and Human. Someone like you, coming after 1000 years, may quote what I just wrote, and say "this is a Miaphysite who admits that the Hypostatic Union is the Union of two Hypostases". But will he be right in saying that I believe in One Hypostasis out of two Hypostases? No.

So make sure you don't continue in this error. We should all, as the Church, use Hypostasis as the Cappadocian Fathers standardized its usage concerning the Trinity.

From modern research of St.Cyril Christology of our miaphysite scholar Khachik Grigoryan (Cyril of Alexandria's Hypostatic Union and Natural Union: is there a difference between them):

View attachment 362644

Yes, I told you what error your theologians are making concerning the term Hypostasis. Make sure you don't continue in the same error.

It is your fantasy. I don’t contradict it.

Anyone who knows good theology can see that you are contradicting it.

I don’t have links on Greek online. I gave you online link on all books PG. So, I found one for you. Next time, do it yourself.

St. Cyril about two natures in minds PG 69, p. 576

PG 69, p. 576

Δύο μὲν γὰρ ὀρνίθια ληφθῆναι κελεύει ζῶντα καὶ καθαρά, ἴνα νοήσης διὰ τῶν πετεινῶν τὸν οὐράνιον ἄνθρωπον ὁμοὺ καὶ Θεὸν, εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις, ὅσον ἦκεν εἰς τὸν ἕκαστη πρέποντα λόγον διαιρούμενον. Λόγος γὰρ ἣν ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ἀναλάμψας, ἐν σαρκὶ τὴ ἐκ γυναικός, πλὴν οὐ μεριζόμενος.

For [μὲν] you must take two living and clean birds, so that through these birds you may understand together the heavenly man and God, truly in two natures [εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις], divided in [εἰς] thought [λόγον] according to each. For the Word, who shone forth from God the Father, was of a woman according to the flesh, but was not divided [μεριζόμενος].


View attachment 362645


And St.Cyril is absolutely orthodox, because we can speak about two natures in mind/theoria/thoughts after union = out of two natures after union = one nature in reality.

Yes, I told you that Cyril of Alexandria died before the Chalcedonian controversy, and he didn't use a language that addresses the errors in the Chalcedonian formula. Both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, we all believe that the two Essences in the One Nature express themselves in Christ's mind and thoughts and everything. But it is ONE Nature (Physis). We do not confuse the Essences, but Miaphysites do not talk about two Natures: that's Chalcedonian language.

So, who is you Catholicos?

Sadly, there are two Catholicoi in the Armenian Church, because this is a Church that needs serious reformation.

 

[Tigran1245]

During the Chalcedonian controversy, the Greek term "Hypostasis" was used sometimes as meaning "Person", and sometimes as meaning "Nature". This is due to some important facts:

Person and hypostasis were interchangeable, because if we talk about Trinity or about people, there is no difference: who is one hypostasis is always one person and who is one person is always one hypostases. But this did not make the concepts merge. When we talk about incarnation, the difference is important. Only in Chalcedonian definitions of these concepts were absolutely identified, and we condemn this reform.

Nature and hypostasis are different things. Nature is the source of hypostasis, hypostasis is the concretisation of nature. Therefore, sometimes hypostasis was called nature. But in general, if we are talking about primary meaning, these are different concepts.

So, in primary meaning Person≠Hypostases≠Nature. Next I will show the difference

1. Previous to the Cappadocian Fathers, this term was usually used as a synonym for Ousia (Essence). The Cappadocian Fathers clarified and standardized the following usage:
Ousia = Essence (The Trinity has One Essence)
Hypostasis = Person (Three Hypostases in the Trinity).

Hypostasis was close to person in case of Trinity theology, but the Cappadocian Fathers distinguished them. Person is self-consciousness, and hypostasis = essence + hypostatic properties (individual properties). Hypostasis is an individual substance, a distinctive feature of a person from other persons. And Saint Basil the Great shows difference between hypostasis and person:

In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named. (CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 214 (St. Basil))

2. In the Syriac language, Hypostasis was not translated as Prosopa (Person), but as Qnoma which is closer to the Greek Physis, though it doesn't have the exactly same meaning.

Parsopa is Person, Qnoma - hypostases. Modern nestorians from Assyrian Church of East believe in one divine Parsopa of Son (one of Trinity) and 2 Qnoma of Word and flesh and 2 Quina of common divinity and humanity.

During the Chalcedonian controversy, theologians and Church Fathers used Hypostasis in different ways, and they often did not understand each other. But the most important point in our discussion here is that you are quoting the related writings from Cyril of Alexandria making the assumption that he uses the term in the sense used by his opponents. While in fact he refutes their teaching, and sometimes he uses their definition of the term Hypostasis to do the refutation. The same is done by Severus of Antioch who is the best interpreter of Cyril of Alexandria. But you quote them as if THEY are using Hypostasis as meaning whatever you think it means, and saying that Christ is one united Hypostasis out of two Hypostases.

Let me remind you that Severus is rejected by Armenian Church the same way as Council of Chalcedon: Armenian Church about Body of Christ: Severus, julianism or incorruption?

Look at the following quote from Severus of Antioch, where he uses Hypostasis in this polemic way, meaning that Hypostasis is a real reality (not a Person, but a reality, as his opponents say), and thus he uses it in a polemic way to refute their teaching. This does NOT mean that he believes that Hypostasis should mean only reality and not a Person like the Three Persons (Hypostases) of the Trinity:

"Since therefore these things have thus been made clear, it has already been recognised that it is alien to those who confess a hypostatic union to call the hypostases, that is the natures which in an ineffable manner coalesced in one, from which Emmanuel is, persons, and therefore to think and say that the union is from two persons. To say this belongs to those who confess a falsely-named union, who make the man and God exist apart in individual existence, and devise for themselves a conjunction founded upon authority and identity of name." (Severus of Antioch, Letter to Thomas the Syncellus).

You see how he uses Hypostasis in the sense used by his opponent: as meaning Nature. And he refutes your falsely-named union. So yes, in this sense, in the sense used by Severus in the above quote, Hypostatic Union means the Union of the two Hypostases, Divine and Human. Someone like you, coming after 1000 years, may quote what I just wrote, and say "this is a Miaphysite who admits that the Hypostatic Union is the Union of two Hypostases". But will he be right in saying that I believe in One Hypostasis out of two Hypostases? No.

Severus' mistake is that he mixed up the concepts of hypostasis and nature.

Armenian Fathers clearly distinguish these concepts. Hypostasis is a concrete reality, and nature is a metaphysical common reality. Human nature cannot be touched, because it has no accidents (including position in space) and is in all hypostases of people. But one concrete human hypostasis can be touched.

Concrete things level: Hypostasis=“first substance”=subsistence

Common reality level: Nature=essence=ousia=species=“second substance”

Jesus is single one as Person and united one both on two levels: concrete reality and level of nature. Jesus has one nature the same way as Trinity is one nature. Archbishop Yeznik Petrosyan, head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Armenian Apostolic Church, writes in his book “Christology of the Armenian Church”:

The term "nature" denotes common, and "person" denotes the particular. One nature can have several persons, as we can see in the case of human and divine natures. For example, in the case of the Holy Trinity, one Divine nature has three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the opposite, that one person could have more than one nature, is impossible.

Yes, I told you that Cyril of Alexandria died before the Chalcedonian controversy, and he didn't use a language that addresses the errors in the Chalcedonian formula. Both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, we all believe that the two Essences in the One Nature express themselves in Christ's mind and thoughts and everything. But it is ONE Nature (Physis). We do not confuse the Essences, but Miaphysites do not talk about two Natures: that's Chalcedonian language.

It is a pity that the Orthodox use of Cyril's terms did not convince you, as well as many words other Fathers of the Armenian Church.

Sadly, there are two Catholicoi in the Armenian Church, because this is a Church that needs serious reformation.

There are two Catholicoses in the Armenian Church: Garegin II and Aram I. Which one is yours?

Or are you not in communion with the Armenian Church?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Person and hypostasis were interchangeable, because if we talk about Trinity or about people, there is no difference: who is one hypostasis is always one person and who is one person is always one hypostases. But this did not make the concepts merge. When we talk about incarnation, the difference is important. Only in Chalcedonian definitions of these concepts were absolutely identified, and we condemn this reform.

Nature and hypostasis are different things. Nature is the source of hypostasis, hypostasis is the concretisation of nature. Therefore, sometimes hypostasis was called nature. But in general, if we are talking about primary meaning, these are different concepts.

So, in primary meaning Person≠Hypostases≠Nature. Next I will show the difference

Hypostasis was close to person in case of Trinity theology, but the Cappadocian Fathers distinguished them. Person is self-consciousness, and hypostasis = essence + hypostatic properties (individual properties). Hypostasis is an individual substance, a distinctive feature of a person from other persons. And Saint Basil the Great shows difference between hypostasis and person:

In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named. (CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 214 (St. Basil))

Parsopa is Person, Qnoma - hypostases. Modern nestorians from Assyrian Church of East believe in one divine Parsopa of Son (one of Trinity) and 2 Qnoma of Word and flesh and 2 Quina of common divinity and humanity.

Let me remind you that Severus is rejected by Armenian Church the same way as Council of Chalcedon: Armenian Church about Body of Christ: Severus, julianism or incorruption?

Severus' mistake is that he mixed up the concepts of hypostasis and nature.

Armenian Fathers clearly distinguish these concepts. Hypostasis is a concrete reality, and nature is a metaphysical common reality. Human nature cannot be touched, because it has no accidents (including position in space) and is in all hypostases of people. But one concrete human hypostasis can be touched.

Concrete things level: Hypostasis=“first substance”=subsistence

Common reality level: Nature=essence=ousia=species=“second substance”

Jesus is single one as Person and united one both on two levels: concrete reality and level of nature. Jesus has one nature the same way as Trinity is one nature. Archbishop Yeznik Petrosyan, head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Armenian Apostolic Church, writes in his book “Christology of the Armenian Church”:

The term "nature" denotes common, and "person" denotes the particular. One nature can have several persons, as we can see in the case of human and divine natures. For example, in the case of the Holy Trinity, one Divine nature has three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the opposite, that one person could have more than one nature, is impossible.

Okay, this way we will keep arguing about the term Hypostasis, and we will not reach any fruitful conclusion. I prefer if you answer me clearly to the following question, and thus I will understand where your problem is with the orthodox doctrine of Christ's Nature:

What is your problem with Nestorianism? What is wrong in the Nestorian doctrine?

It is a pity that the Orthodox use of Cyril's terms did not convince you, as well as many words other Fathers of the Armenian Church.

It is a pity that you contradict a great Orthodox theologian like Pope Shenouda III in understanding the Church Fathers.

There are two Catholicoses in the Armenian Church: Garegin II and Aram I. Which one is yours?

Or are you not in communion with the Armenian Church?

Did you know that both Catholicosates are in full communion? I am in full communion with the Armenian Church. But sadly, it needs serious reformation both in doctrine and practice.

 

[Tigran1245]

Okay, this way we will keep arguing about the term Hypostasis, and we will not reach any fruitful conclusion. I prefer if you answer me clearly to the following question, and thus I will understand where your problem is with the orthodox doctrine of Christ's Nature:

What is your problem with Nestorianism? What is wrong in the Nestorian doctrine?

The problem with Nestorianism is that it has 2 separate hypostases and 2 separate natures, that deification does not occur, and names and subjects are separated. In extreme Nestorianism there are also 2 Persons, which essentially means 2 sons.

Did you know that both Catholicosates are in full communion? I am in full communion with the Armenian Church. But sadly, it needs serious reformation both in doctrine and practice.

What reform is needed for the Church?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

The problem with Nestorianism is that it has 2 separate hypostases and 2 separate natures, that deification does not occur, and names and subjects are separated. In extreme Nestorianism there are also 2 Persons, which essentially means 2 sons.

Is there a problem if they reject the doctrine of the Theotokos?

What reform is needed for the Church?

Both in doctrine and practice.

 

[Tigran1245]

Is there a problem if they reject the doctrine of the Theotokos?

In general, historically Nestorius used the word Theotokos. Nestorius:

“The Holy Virgin is the Theotokos <...> the Temple created in her by the Holy Spirit is united with the divinity”. (From book “Nestorious and Assyrian Church of East”)

His error was that he confessed one Person out of two. But later he changed his position after his exile. The late Nestorius is the book of Heraclitus is close to Chalcedon.

Both in doctrine and practice.

What doctrine do you want to change?

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

In general, historically Nestorius used the word Theotokos. Nestorius:

“The Holy Virgin is the Theotokos <...> the Temple created in her by the Holy Spirit is united with the divinity”. (From book “Nestorious and Assyrian Church of East”)

His error was that he confessed one Person out of two. But later he changed his position after his exile. The late Nestorius is the book of Heraclitus is close to Chalcedon.

Nestorians refuse the title Theotokos. Why?

What doctrine do you want to change?

Many doctrines need reformation. This is not the place for that discussion.

 

[Tigran1245]

Nestorians refuse the title Theotokos. Why?

Since they deny natural union, they also deny the interchange of names. Therefore they do not say, or rarely say, that God was born, suffered, and died. Because they do not attribute to Word what belongs to the flesh, and don’t attribute to flesh what belongs to Word.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Since they deny natural union, they also deny the interchange of names. Therefore they do not say, or rarely say, that God was born, suffered, and died. Because they do not attribute to Word what belongs to the flesh, and don’t attribute to flesh what belongs to Word.

Is this the reason why Nestorius refused to call the Blessed Virgin "Theotokos" when asked by Cyril of Alexandria?